What did the BMJ and Brian Deer specifically document about Wakefield’s patient records and financial ties?
Executive summary
The BMJ, via a multi-part investigation by Brian Deer, documented that the 1998 Lancet paper by Andrew Wakefield misrepresented the medical histories of all 12 children in the study and that Wakefield had undeclared financial interests tied to litigation and commercial plans that would have profited if his vaccine-autism hypothesis held true [1] [2] [3]. Deer and the BMJ produced side-by-side comparisons of published case descriptions and original hospital/GP records, and unearthed documents showing payments from solicitors and business prospectuses for diagnostic kits and vaccine alternatives [4] [5] [6].
1. What the BMJ and Deer found in patient records
The BMJ reported that Deer’s review of hospital and general practitioner records showed that "not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration," and that in no case could the published histories, diagnoses or timelines be fully reconciled with the contemporaneous medical records—findings the BMJ framed as evidence of falsification [1] [2]. Deer published tables juxtaposing the Lancet descriptions against original NHS and hospital files that highlighted wholesale changes, including discrepancies in the reported timing of symptom onset after MMR vaccination and the attribution of parental concern to vaccines; for example, the Lancet reported eight parents blamed MMR while records showed eleven had done so, and some reported symptom onset months later were omitted to create an apparent 14‑day temporal link [4] [3]. The BMJ and Deer anchored these claims to interviews, documents and material made public during the General Medical Council (GMC) hearings that later investigated Wakefield’s conduct [1].
2. What the BMJ and Deer documented about Wakefield’s financial ties
Deer uncovered evidence that Wakefield had undisclosed financial relationships with solicitors pursuing vaccine litigation—payments amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds—and that he was simultaneously developing commercial ventures tied to a purported "autistic enterocolitis" diagnosis that would benefit if MMR confidence fell [3] [7]. The BMJ published documents including a private prospectus and business plans predicting multimillion‑pound revenues from diagnostic kits and patent claims for "safer" measles vaccines, and reported that Wakefield met with medical‑school managers and business associates about joint ventures even while the first child in his study was still under investigation [5] [6]. BMJ and Deer argued these undisclosed conflicts created a substantial motive and constituted undisclosed competing interests at the time of the Lancet publication [5] [3].
3. How the BMJ positioned Deer’s findings within official action and retraction
The BMJ’s reporting placed Deer’s evidence alongside the GMC’s Fitness to Practise proceedings and later editorial commentary that concluded the Lancet paper was not merely flawed but fraudulent, citing Deer’s documentation of record falsification and financial conflicts as central to that judgement; the Lancet ultimately retracted the paper and Wakefield was later struck off the UK medical register in connection with the research [1] [3] [2]. The BMJ authors stressed that Deer’s investigation drew on material entered into the public record during the GMC hearing and that these revelations prompted calls to re-examine other Wakefield publications and institutional oversight [1] [3].
4. Wakefield’s response and contested claims
Wakefield denies Deer’s findings—asserting he did not have access to certain GP records at the time and calling the BMJ series "utter nonsense"—and later filed a defamation suit against BMJ and Deer in Texas challenging the reporting and alleging undisclosed BMJ revenue from vaccine manufacturers; BMJ and Deer have countered and stood by the investigation [4] [8]. Reporting notes these rebuttals and legal moves but also records that Deer’s sources included documentary evidence and that several legal adjudications and journal actions have corroborated the central problems Deer identified [3] [4].
5. Implications and limits of the BMJ/Deer record
The BMJ and Deer established two linked claims: that the patient-case data in the Lancet paper were systematically altered or misreported relative to contemporaneous records, and that Wakefield had undisclosed financial and commercial plans tied to the same hypothesis—claims documented with comparative tables, prospectuses and payment records released during investigations [1] [4] [6]. Reporting relied on GMC evidence and documents obtained by Deer; however, the materials and conclusions are those presented by Deer and BMJ and the available sources should be read directly for granular detail—this account does not assert facts beyond what those publications and public records contain [1] [4].